Without question, the greatest
threat to archaeological sites, is development. Whenever a bulldozer starts
up for new construction -- whether for a highway or a subdivision -- the
potential exists for cutting into and destroying an archaeological site.

Years ago, the federal government
recognized that some of our nation's most important historic and archaeological
sites were being destroyed by federally supported projects. A number of
rather complex laws and regulations were passed
to deal with the problem... to try to identify and protect at least a
portion of the important sites. Most state governments followed suit,
passing laws and regulations that went a little further towards protection
and preservation. North Carolina has been particularly conscious of the
problem, and now has a fairly comprehensive set of protective laws and
procedures on the books.

Under the federal and state
laws, one of the most important tasks of the State Historic Preservation
Officer (the SHPO), and therefore the Office of State Archaeology, is
the review of development projects funded, licensed or permitted by the
federal or state governments. Generally referred to as the Environmental
Review Process, it is the means by which archaeological and historic sites
are considered in the planning stages of at least some of the many thousands
of projects undertaken each year in North Carolina.

When a proposed development
action falls into one of the categories covered by the laws, the SHPO
is given the opportunity to review and comment on its potential for affecting
significant sites. [A "significant site" is defined under the laws as
one which is either listed or eligible for listing in the National Register
of Historic Places, a listing of local, state and nationally important
historic and archaeological sites.] If a project is considered likely
to damage an important site, some form of impact mitigation may be undertaken,
either through project avoidance and site preservation or, if necessary,
total or partial data recovery ("salvage" excavation).

The review process involves
an evaluation of' (1) the type and location of the project proposed (good
maps are essential), (2) the presence or absence of known sites in the
project area, and (3) the potential for significant sites in the area.
The first two steps are pretty straightforward. If the project involves
no ground disturbance or will take place in an area where previous disturbances
have been severe, such as along an existing highway, there may be no need
for concern. A check of the archaeological site files is still conducted,
however, just to make sure. The difficult step is the determination of
the potential for significant sites. Since only a small fraction of the
state has been systematically surveyed for sites most of the review work
involves the assessment (a prediction) of whether sites are likely to
occur in a project area and, to make matters even more difficult, whether
they're likely to be important enough to be concerned about.

In assessing the site potential
for a project area, the reviewer considers a number factors; for example,
the proximity to permanent water, the soil type(s), and any previous land
uses. As important, if not more so, however, is what we know about where
people lived in the past, and the different types of sites (villages,
camps, etc.) they created across the landscape. This is generally referred
to as settlement pattern analysis, with the result being a settlement
model (also called a predictive model when used in the review process).
The models form the basis for much of the reviews conducted each day at
the Office of State Archaeology.

The accuracy of our model(s)
of prehistoric or historic settlement, however, is dependent upon the
amount of information already available about a given area or similar
areas. The greater the information about the locations and contents of
sites, the better our models and predictions, and the better the chances
for identifying and protecting the resources.

Information about sites (of
all kinds) comes from both professionals and amateur collectors and should
be reported as soon as possible after discovery. If the information is
on file, it can and will be used in the review process. "The more the
better" is an accurate statement when it comes to preserving the past.